|In the revised version of the manuscript, I recognized the significant efforts of the Authors in improving their work and in addressing my main criticism. Indeed, I now find the manuscript more robust, by providing more insights on model development and on its explicitness, thus better conveying the main message of the paper. |
I only have a few final comments, which, in my opinion, would deserve to be addressed before publication:
- The Authors have specified (L145 and 235) that the model “validation” has been carried out with the same experts who were interviewed in the development phase of the model. I am still convinced that this process cannot be called “validation”, given that, to be so, it would require (at least) different experts involved in the two different phases. The approach followed by the Authors may be fine (as I am aware that it could be difficult to find many experts available to be interviewed), but I would rather define this process as “sanity check of the model” or just “check of the model”.
- Always regarding Axis 2 (“Validation” in Table 2), points V3 and V4 pertain to model “usability”; then, I would suggest renaming the title for this Axis as “Validation and usability”. Here the term “validation” is ok, as it is used in a more general context (including traditional validation against observed data).
- I suggest the Authors to rephrase and better explain the following sentence “In this paper, we argue that process-based models are not doomed to be context specific as far as the modelling process is rigorous”, both in the abstract and in the conclusion section. In my opinion, as it is now, it could be misleading, given that process-based models are always general in their methodological framework, while it is only their “application” that it is context-specific (as it also emerges from Authors’ paper). I suggest here a possible amendment for the mentioned sentence: “In this paper, we argue that process-based models, based on a rigorous modelling process, can be suitable to be applied in different contexts”.
-Description of damage to equipment: I guess Equation 16 implicitly implies some damage ratio (or vulnerability function) or are you assuming that equipment is always fully damaged whenever there is a flood? Please clarify this point.
- L2: “because they may have greater exposure and are complex economic systems”: in my opinion, it would be better to say: “because they are complex economic systems particularly exposed to floods”.
- L14-15: not so clear sentence; please consider rephrasing (perhaps by shortening it).
- L68: it seems there is a missing word after “insurance”, probably “penetration” or “coverage”.
- L82: replace “it” after “(ii)” with “damage” to be more clear.
- L102-105: delete this paragraph, since it is just mentioned a few lines above (L93-94).
- Please check figures and tables numbering: for example, I noted that Figure 3 is cited in the text before Figure 2 (the same applies to Tables 9 and 6).
- I would suggest merging Figures 3 and 8 into just one figure.
- L205-206: unclear sentence; please consider rephrasing.
- L273: “materiel” -> “material”.
- Table 2: this information could be directly provided in the text (e.g. at L280), without using a table.
- L305: sub-questions are actually two and not three.
- L319: insert a comma after “material” and “mortality”.
- Parameter beta (as in Table 7): I guess there are different thresholds for beta (which drives the farmer’s strategy) for different types of plants, or, based on expert knowledge, are they fixed values? Please specify this point.
- L467 and 469: “data” instead of “date”